AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine and Diabetes Mellitus: A Prospective Clinical Study Regarding Vaccine Side Effects

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major public health problem worldwide, and vaccination is currently the most effective way to control its spread and reduce its severity. Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a prevalent chronic disease that poses a significant health risk and is a frequent comorbidity in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the frequency of local and systemic side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine among diabetic and non-diabetic participants.

Methodology

This multicenter study was designed as a cross-sectional prospective study and was conducted in Pakistan using a non-probability consecutive sampling method. The study duration was eight months from August 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023. A total of 700 participants who received both (first and second) doses of the AstraZeneca immunization were included in the study. An independent t-test was applied to determine the association between the means and standard deviations of age, height, weight, and duration of DM and hypertension. The chi-square test was used to evaluate the association between local and systemic side effects.

Results

Among the 700 participants, 173 (49.4%) males and 177 (50.6%) females had diabetes, whereas 183 (52.3%) males and 167 (47.7%) females did not have DM; their mean ages were 46.95 ± 12.73 years (diabetics) and 38.10 ± 14.14 years (non-diabetics). The most frequent adverse effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine after the first dose were pain at the injection site, reported by 259 (74.0%) diabetics and 226 (64.6%) non-diabetic participants; however, after the second dose, injection site swelling in 170 (48.6%) diabetic and 163 (46.6%) non-diabetic recipients was the most commonly reported local side effects.

Conclusions

This study concluded that concurrent medical conditions such as DM had substantially more local and systemic side effects than those without the disease. After receiving both doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, the most frequently reported local side effects in both diabetic and non-diabetic participants were pain, swelling, and burning at the injection site, followed by systemic side effects such as fever.

Related collections

Most cited references 31

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine

Fernando P Polack, Stephen J. Thomas, Nicholas R.E. Kitchin … (2023)

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)

0 comments Cited 7631 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine

Lindsey Baden, Hana El Sahly, Brandon Essink … (2020)

Abstract Background Vaccines are needed to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and to protect persons who are at high risk for complications. The mRNA-1273 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine that encodes the prefusion stabilized full-length spike protein of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes Covid-19. Methods This phase 3 randomized, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 99 centers across the United States. Persons at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or its complications were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo 28 days apart. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Results The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001). Efficacy was similar across key secondary analyses, including assessment 14 days after the first dose, analyses that included participants who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and analyses in participants 65 years of age or older. Severe Covid-19 occurred in 30 participants, with one fatality; all 30 were in the placebo group. Moderate, transient reactogenicity after vaccination occurred more frequently in the mRNA-1273 group. Serious adverse events were rare, and the incidence was similar in the two groups. Conclusions The mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy at preventing Covid-19 illness, including severe disease. Aside from transient local and systemic reactions, no safety concerns were identified. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)

0 comments Cited 5289 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Merryn Voysey, Sue Ann Costa Clemens, Shabir Madhi … (2022)

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; p interaction =0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. Funding UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

0 comments Cited 2568 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Cureus

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Cureus

Journal ID (issn): 2168-8184

Title: Cureus

Publisher: Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )

ISSN (Electronic): 2168-8184

Publication date (Electronic, pub): 3 January 2024

Publication date (Electronic, collection): January 2024

Volume: 16

Issue: 1

Electronic Location Identifier: e51583

Affiliations

[1 ] Department of Medicine, Basic Health Sciences, and Neuropharmacology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, ITA

[2 ] Anatomy, Dow International Dental College, Karachi, PAK

[3 ] Internal Medicine, Essa General Hospital, Karachi, PAK

[4 ] Emergency Medicine, Ziauddin University, Karachi, PAK

[5 ] Internal Medicine, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derbyshire, GBR

[6 ] Family Medicine, Al-Samdah Health Center Duba, Ministry of Health, Duba, SAU

[7 ] Pathology, Liaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, PAK

Author notes

Atif A. Hashmi atifhashmi345@ 123456gmail.com

Article

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51583

PMC ID: 10836246

PubMed ID: 38313879

SO-VID: 98b417c0-9051-4225-bbe2-e817cbdba612

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Date accepted : 3 January 2024

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.